Register For Our Mailing List

Register to receive our free weekly newsletter including editorials.

Home / 265

Three key attributes of great companies

Investors need to consider more than the hard numbers of target investments. They need to identify 'softer' aspects of companies to gain an advantage. Recent revelations of misconduct from the Financial Services Royal Commission also emphasise the need for investors to garner greater insights into the corporate culture of companies in which they invest.

We’ve identified three key attributes in great growth companies. They are:

1. A tailwind or growth path ahead

Is the company in an industry set for secular growth or secular decline?

If the global demand for a company’s products is shrinking, or worse, if the product has been made irrelevant by a change in consumer preferences, it can be severely detrimental to value. A recent example is any small- or mid-sized newspaper company.

This attribute is a 'price of admission' characteristic. Making sure it is present won’t set you apart much, but if you forget to think about it, you are asking for trouble.

2. An expanding 'moat'

Warren Buffett used the ‘moat’ metaphor to describe an enduring competitive advantage. He likened a business to a castle and suggested that the company’s edge, the thing that keeps competitors from simply copying the business and destroying the company’s high profits, was the moat around the castle. A wide moat business can earn higher profits for a longer time. With Buffett’s success, this concept caught on. Today, for example, Morningstar publishes moat ratings for thousands of companies.

One financial metric that gives a good sense of the size of the moat is return on invested capital, or ROIC. High profitability attracts competitors, so an ROIC that has stayed high is a decent indication that there is some kind of valuable moat. But note the past tense. ROIC is a rearview mirror metric, in that it tells you where you have been, but really tells you nothing about where you are going.

The critical thing is not the size of the moat or the rearview mirror look at competitive advantage, but rather how the competitive advantage is changing – is it getting stronger, or weaker?

We call this dynamic aspect the 'moat trajectory', and our approach to identifying moat trajectories, as early as possible, has been to:

1. Analyse dozens of historical examples of moat lifecycles (essentially business case studies) and:

A. Look for common patterns.

B. Not expect those patterns to repeat exactly but check for where they tend to rhyme.

C. In those places where they rhyme, identify and catalogue the indicators of improving or deteriorating moats, and then construct a rough framework of what to look for.

2. Evaluate a prospective investment using that framework of indicators and:

A. If the markers are present, have confidence the moat is expanding.

B. If absent, conclude the moat is flat or deteriorating.

Deteriorating moats can be serious capital destroyers. And they are deceptive, because they usually start out as a great company that starts to look really cheap. Just ask the shareholders of Nokia or Blackberry or Yahoo, or others like them.

So, a “wide-moat company selling at a discount to intrinsic value” (an all-too common phrase in our industry) is not the answer. In particular, don’t let cheapness deceive you into believing you have a 'safe' investment.

The question to ask is, “Where is the company’s competitive edge in the future?” This is more important than the share price and value. For instance, some people will invest in the biggest company, or in market leaders, believing that this will provide safety for their investment. But if the organisation is losing its edge, either by declining market share or some other symptom of its shrinking moat, then that organisation will experience challenges and ultimately its share price will suffer.

3. An aligned corporate culture

An aligned corporate culture makes intuitive sense. If your employees hate working at a company, they will not put in their best efforts or ideas, and that will make it nearly impossible to have a good company (or investment). In contrast, if people enjoy working there, they will do more for it and their colleagues, and for the customers.

An organisation can have the greatest products, a robust brand and reputation, effective policies and processes and a long history of trading, but if the culture is poor, it is much less likely to succeed when compared with a business that has a healthy culture. Despite those good products, customer might complain about slow delivery, poor service or rude employees. These are all indicators of a company’s culture.

In contrast, companies with great service and employees that go the extra mile rarely have complaints made against them. If they are not making complaints, then customers will return to the better businesses, leading of course to better business results. It’s that simple.

Even when you have nearly identical businesses in the same industry, there can be big differences in business performance. Corporate culture is generally the explanation. For example, consider how Costco is so much more successful than Sam’s Club (a division of Walmart).

But how do you analyse corporate cultures? It’s not easy, and that’s why most investors skip it. We have an analyst dedicated to probe the cultures of companies in which we invest, and we have developed a proprietary methodology for assessing this subjective element. Assessment techniques we use to determine this include meeting with company management, and interviewing former employees, vendors, customers, and competitors. We also consider employee turnover rates, net promoter scores, online reviews, surveys, and many more inputs.

Visiting a business’s operations, for example, enables us to gather small yet highly informative details to evaluate its culture. Similarly, industry surveys and net promoter scores reveal hard-to-quantify appraisals of cultural reputations or overall customer satisfaction. The latter, for businesses with a significant proportion of customer-facing staff, is often reflective of its culture. Happy employees make happy customers, which make for happy shareholders.

The magic combination is a culture which encourages the behaviours that enhance the company’s competitive advantage. This can keep a business ahead of its competitors for years.

Accordingly, good investment research today is not just about getting hard financial numbers, it’s also about gaining a better understanding of the 'softer' aspects of businesses.


Kurt Winrich is Co-CEO and Portfolio Manager of WCM Investment Management, a California-based investment management firm. 

December 18, 2018

Interesting read. Tailwinds are a no brainer, but not many managers consider 'expanding' moats or culture in this.

@SMSF Trustee, if a company that doesn't have a tailwind adapts and reinvents itself effectively, it can become a company with a tailwind which would mean it fits the first criteria. Similarly, a company may have an expanding moat that becomes stagnant or in decline (Facebook may be an example of this), and it would therefore no longer fit the criteria.

Just because a company does or doesn't fit one of the above criteria at a particular point in time doesn't mean it'll stay that way forever.

So I would argue the list does allow for companies to adapt. Interesting point though.

SMSF Trustee
August 03, 2018

The problem with your list is that it doesn't allow for companies to adapt. Another kind of great company is one that doesn't have tail winds, is in a declining industry, but reinvents itself.

Energy companies grappling with the transition of the global economy to renewable sources are an example - it will be interesting to see which ones turn out to be great and which ones diminish.

Looking back, CSR hasn't been in sugar for nearly a decade now and has been more focused on building products since the mid-20th century, after starting out in 1855 as a sugar refining operation.

Adaptability doesn't automatically make a company 'great' of course, but my point is simply that your first point should be qualified to say that a company that either has great tailwinds or is capable of adjusting its activities to ride a new tailwind.


Leave a Comment:



Five value chains driving the ‘transition winners’

Culture and competitive advantage


Most viewed in recent weeks

Is it better to rent or own a home under the age pension?

With 62% of Australians aged 65 and over relying at least partially on the age pension, are they better off owning their home or renting? There is an extra pension asset allowance for those not owning a home.

Too many retirees miss out on this valuable super fund benefit

With 700 Australians retiring every day, retirement income solutions are more important than ever. Why do millions of retirees eligible for a more tax-efficient pension account hold money in accumulation?

Is the fossil fuel narrative simply too convenient?

A fund manager argues it is immoral to deny poor countries access to relatively cheap energy from fossil fuels. Wealthy countries must recognise the transition is a multi-decade challenge and continue to invest.

Reece Birtles on selecting stocks for income in retirement

Equity investing comes with volatility that makes many retirees uncomfortable. A focus on income which is less volatile than share prices, and quality companies delivering robust earnings, offers more reassurance.

Comparing generations and the nine dimensions of our well-being

Using the nine dimensions of well-being used by the OECD, and dividing Australians into Baby Boomers, Generation Xers or Millennials, it is surprisingly easy to identify the winners and losers for most dimensions.

Anton in 2006 v 2022, it's deja vu (all over again)

What was bothering markets in 2006? Try the end of cheap money, bond yields rising, high energy prices and record high commodity prices feeding inflation. Who says these are 'unprecedented' times? It's 2006 v 2022.

Latest Updates


Superannuation: a 30+ year journey but now stop fiddling

Few people have been closer to superannuation policy over the years than Noel Whittaker, especially when he established his eponymous financial planning business. He takes us on a quick guided tour.

Survey: share your retirement experiences

All Baby Boomers are now over 55 and many are either in retirement or thinking about a transition from work. But what is retirement like? Is it the golden years or a drag? Do you have tips for making the most of it?


Time for value as ‘promise generators’ fail to deliver

A $28 billion global manager still sees far more potential in value than growth stocks, believes energy stocks are undervalued including an Australian company, and describes the need for resilience in investing.


Paul Keating's long-term plans for super and imputation

Paul Keating not only designed compulsory superannuation but in the 30 years since its introduction, he has maintained the rage. Here are highlights of three articles on SG's origins and two more recent interviews.

Fixed interest

On interest rates and credit, do you feel the need for speed?

Central bank support for credit and equity markets is reversing, which has led to wider spreads and higher rates. But what does that mean and is it time to jump at higher rates or do they have some way to go?

Investment strategies

Death notices for the 60/40 portfolio are premature

Pundits have once again declared the death of the 60% stock/40% bond portfolio amid sharp declines in both stock and bond prices. Based on history, balanced portfolios are apt to prove the naysayers wrong, again.

Exchange traded products

ETFs and the eight biggest worries in index investing

Both passive investing and ETFs have withstood criticism as their popularity has grown. They have been blamed for causing bubbles, distorting the market, and concentrating share ownership. Are any of these criticisms valid?



© 2022 Morningstar, Inc. All rights reserved.

The data, research and opinions provided here are for information purposes; are not an offer to buy or sell a security; and are not warranted to be correct, complete or accurate. Morningstar, its affiliates, and third-party content providers are not responsible for any investment decisions, damages or losses resulting from, or related to, the data and analyses or their use. Any general advice or ‘regulated financial advice’ under New Zealand law has been prepared by Morningstar Australasia Pty Ltd (ABN: 95 090 665 544, AFSL: 240892) and/or Morningstar Research Ltd, subsidiaries of Morningstar, Inc, without reference to your objectives, financial situation or needs. For more information refer to our Financial Services Guide (AU) and Financial Advice Provider Disclosure Statement (NZ). You should consider the advice in light of these matters and if applicable, the relevant Product Disclosure Statement before making any decision to invest. Past performance does not necessarily indicate a financial product’s future performance. To obtain advice tailored to your situation, contact a professional financial adviser. Articles are current as at date of publication.
This website contains information and opinions provided by third parties. Inclusion of this information does not necessarily represent Morningstar’s positions, strategies or opinions and should not be considered an endorsement by Morningstar.

Website Development by Master Publisher.